1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ANTHONY J. DAVIS, No. 1:25-cv-00925-SAB (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, 11 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 12 TUOLUMNE COUNTY, et al., (ECF No. 8)

13 Defendants.

14 15 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42

. 17 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed 18 September 22, 2025. 19 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 20 Rowland,

(9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any attorney to 21 represent plaintiff pursuant to

(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for 22 the Southern District of Iowa,

(1989). However, in certain exceptional 23 circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 24 1915(e)(1). Rand,

. 25 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 26 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 27 “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success 28 1 | onthe merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 2 | complexity of the legal issues involved.”

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 3 The test for exceptional circumstances requires the Court to evaluate the Plaintiff's 4 | likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in 5 | light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon,

, 6 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look,

(9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances 7 | common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 8 | establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of 9 | counsel. Although the Court has found that Plaintiff states a cognizable retaliation claim against 10 | Defendant Hurtado, at this early stage of the proceedings the Court cannot determine the 11 | likelihood of success on his claim. The fact an attorney may be better able to perform research, 12 || investigate, and represent a plaintiff does not change the analysis. There is little doubt most pro se 13 | litigants “find it difficult to articulate [their] claims,” and would be better served with the 14 | assistance of counsel. Wilborn,

; Courtney v. Kandel, No. 2:18-CV-2052-KJM- 15 | DMC-P,

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2020) (challenges conducting discovery 16 | and preparing for trial “are ordinary for prisoners pursuing civil rights claim” and cannot form the 17 | basis for appointment of counsel). Further, indigency does not qualify as an exceptional 18 | circumstance. See Callender v. Ramm, No. 2:16-cv-0694 JAM AC P,

, at *3 19 | (E.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2018) (“The law is clear: neither plaintiff's indigence, nor his lack of 20 | education, nor his lack of legal expertise warrant the appointment of counsel”). Accordingly, 21 | Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is denied, without prejudice. 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA Le 24 | Dated: _ September 23, 2025 ; STANLEY A. BOONE 25 United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28